Rig Design

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Deanimator
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.

Rig Design

Post by Deanimator »

While the discarded security camera mount I've been using as a table top rig is ok, it's pretty tall and probably introduces movement, which I think I've seen since I started using my Wemacro.

This morning I drew up a [very] rough design for an alternate in Corel Draw.

It's a heavy wood/plywood/MDF base with four 3/8" threaded rods at the corners. Onto these goes another platform, adjustable for height using nuts and washers. A ball [or geared] head would go on the upper platform.

Does anyone have any comments on its suitability?

Image

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3416
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

What I've found in building many systems is it's most important to ensure the subject stage/holder is tightly-linked mechanically to the camera/lens assembly. Vibration control of the whole system is less important. If the camera and subject both move together, it doesn't matter so much if both are moving relative to the rest of the system/bench.

I don't really understand what it is you're trying to show in the drawing. Where is the subject stage, and where is the camera/lens mounted? Maybe a more complete system drawing would help.

elf
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:10 pm

Post by elf »

I thought perhaps M.C. Escher drew your design :P

Four posts like that will be very difficult to adjust. They will have to be perfectly aligned or they will bind. What part of the setup will this be used for?

I used a 12"x18"x3" granite surface plate for the base and various pieces of 8020 extrusions for adjusting subject and camera height.

mawyatt
Posts: 2497
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:54 pm
Location: Clearwater, Florida

Post by mawyatt »

Base mass and camera/lens/subject stiffness are your friends.

If it's heavy it's harder for vibration to move anything as Elf has indicated. If it's rigid from the subject to camera/lens, these move in unison (called common mode) under vibration influence as Ray has indicated.

BTW I've always liked Escher's work!!

Best,

Mike

Deanimator
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.

Post by Deanimator »

ray_parkhurst wrote:I don't really understand what it is you're trying to show in the drawing. Where is the subject stage, and where is the camera/lens mounted? Maybe a more complete system drawing would help.
The bottom piece would be a heavy piece of wood/plywood/MDF, perhaps with a simple metal plate underneath for added weight.

If the camera were mounted on the top piece, perpendicular to the long axis, the stage would be separate. If mounted parallel, there would be room for the subject on the top piece.

I haven't used Corel Draw X3 in a long time, so I was lucky to get what I have there.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3416
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

mawyatt wrote:...
BTW I've always liked Escher's work!!
Me too. I have a '61 print of the Waterwheel fantasy on my wall.

Deanimator
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.

Post by Deanimator »

elf wrote:I thought perhaps M.C. Escher drew your design :P

Four posts like that will be very difficult to adjust. They will have to be perfectly aligned or they will bind. What part of the setup will this be used for?
The posts themselves are stationary.

The top part on which the camera (and possibly the subject) rests on nuts and washers on the posts that can be adjusted up and down to raise and lower the camera. Nuts and washers on top would fix it in place.

The idea is to give a decent range of vertical movement for the camera so that it can shoot parallel to the top of the table or downward. I don't want to limit myself to one or the other, while giving myself a wider base than my current rig (a security camera wall mount with a ballhead attached).

The posts are for gross adjustments in height, not fine focus.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3416
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Deanimator wrote:
ray_parkhurst wrote:I don't really understand what it is you're trying to show in the drawing. Where is the subject stage, and where is the camera/lens mounted? Maybe a more complete system drawing would help.
The bottom piece would be a heavy piece of wood/plywood/MDF, perhaps with a simple metal plate underneath for added weight.

If the camera were mounted on the top piece, perpendicular to the long axis, the stage would be separate. If mounted parallel, there would be room for the subject on the top piece.

I haven't used Corel Draw X3 in a long time, so I was lucky to get what I have there.
So the top piece is intended to allow tilt/tip adjustment? There are easier ways to accomplish this.

If the stage were mounted on the top piece, doesn't this negate the purpose of the top piece? Or is there some reason you want to tilt/tip the entire system? I have never found having the system level to earth very important.

edited to add: I responded while you were writing.

So if you're just looking for height adjustment, it is only useful if the stage is separate. Something like this can be useful if you change equipment often, though the method of adjusting 4 screws would be tedious. It might be simpler just to make some thick shims or intermediate spacers, and swap them out when you change equipment.

GrayPlayer
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 5:44 pm

Post by GrayPlayer »

Using telescope balance weights for camera. Free weights would serve the same purpose. Mount camera and Wemacro on one and specimen is attached to another.
Fred H.

Deanimator
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.

Post by Deanimator »

ray_parkhurst wrote:So the top piece is intended to allow tilt/tip adjustment? There are easier ways to accomplish this.
No, just gross height adjustment. The ballhead (not shown) allows changes in elevation.
ray_parkhurst wrote:So if you're just looking for height adjustment, it is only useful if the stage is separate. Something like this can be useful if you change equipment often, though the method of adjusting 4 screws would be tedious. It might be simpler just to make some thick shims or intermediate spacers, and swap them out when you change equipment.
It's not so much for changes of equipment, but of camera to subject angle. Sometimes I want to shoot on the same level as the subject, sometimes from above.

Your idea of shims/spacers has merit.

Deanimator
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.

Post by Deanimator »

I bought a cheap Harbor Freight drill press this morning because I got tired of being so limited in what I could do.

I'm going to be trying some different things in the coming days and weeks.

elf
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:10 pm

Post by elf »

Ballheads are very difficult to adjust at macro ranges.

What magnification are you planning on using? Designs for 100X need to be considerably more rigid and precise than 5X.

Deanimator
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.

Post by Deanimator »

elf wrote:Ballheads are very difficult to adjust at macro ranges.

What magnification are you planning on using? Designs for 100X need to be considerably more rigid and precise than 5X.
Eventually I'll be using microscope objectives.

Right now, I'm using various combinations of 100mm macro lens, 50mm manual reversed, extension tubes and teleconverter.

Deanimator
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.

Post by Deanimator »

Now that I have a drill press, I was able to throw together a better rig than the one I had in an evening and part of this afternoon. It's composed of a remnant board from Home Depot and a square tapered furniture foot (a truncated pyramid).

I will probably add some rails along the long edges of the board into which will be mounted 1/4" threaded sleeves into which I can screw my magic arms without fear of them rotating and falling.

I may yet add a simple metal plate underneath for more mass.

I'm not sure it would work for microscope objectives, but I'm certain it's more stable than the rig it just replaced, being both shorter, more solid and having fewer joints.

I'll post pictures when I get a chance.

Deanimator
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.

Post by Deanimator »

I finally got around to taking some pictures with my phone:

Image
Image
Image

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic